I Really Got Her Goat

I have been doing a survey of the Old Testament on Sunday nights, and this past Sunday night I spoke about the Song of Solomon. Audiences always find the expressions of admiration in the book pretty funny, such as “Your hair is like a flock of goats” (4:4). So after the sermon I thought I would be real funny and tell all of the women as they came out of the assembly that their hair looked like a flock of goats.

Well, the first woman out was one of my favorite people in the congregation, an older sister named Elizabeth Williams. Elizabeth just turned 90, and she is full of life and energy. So as she came out I said, “Ms. Elizabeth, could I just say that your hair looks like a flock of goats.” To which she replied, “Like what?” And then I realized that since she is hard of hearing, and since I did not use any visuals that night, that she probably didn’t hear much of the sermon. In her mind, I have just come up to her and told her she looks like a goat!

Well, for three days I worried over this, and as soon as I saw her Wednesday night at Bible study I hurried over to where she and her husband C.D. were sitting with my Bible to show her what I said and why. As soon as I started she said, “C.D. explained it to me.” Whew!

Anyway, I was really proud of myself for preaching through such sensitive material without stepping on any major land mines, only to blow it after the lesson! Pride goes before the fall!

The "Dead in Christ"

When I was a young preacher one of my first sermons using visual aids was a sermon I "adapted" (ahem) from another preacher called "Where Are the Dead?" That sermon presented the view that Christians who die do not go to be with the Lord, but instead are in a place called paradise (Abraham's bosom in Luke 16), awaiting the resurrection, at which time they will be with the Lord. I no longer believe that view is the best explanation of the condition of those who are dead in Christ.

In 1 Thess. 4:14 Paul assures the Thessalonians: "For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep." Notice, Paul says that Jesus will bring "those who have fallen asleep" with him. If Christ is bringing the dead in Christ with Him, that necessarily implies the dead in Christ are with Him!

Paul makes the same point another way in Philippians 1:23 and 2 Corinthians 5:8-9. In those passages he speaks of two options: to remain in the body and work for his brothers and sisters, or to go and be at home with the Lord. There is no indication in these texts of any kind of waiting area. Paul knew that if he left the body he would be with his Lord.

The concept of a waiting chamber for the righteous is deeply rooted in the Catholic teaching of limbo, which not only says that limbo is for unbaptized infants, but also that the righteous of the Old Testament were in a form of limbo (called the limbus patrum). Many interpreters of a wide variety of backgrounds have concluded that the Old Testament saints were not allowed into the presence of God until the death of Jesus, and I do believe a biblical case can be made for that position (in texts such as Eph. 4:8-10).

However, I know of no biblical evidence that suggests anything other than the face value meaning of the texts in 1 Thess. 4:14; Phil. 1:23 and 2 Cor. 5:8-9. Of course the dead in Christ are "naked" as Paul puts it in 2 Corinthians 5:1-6, awaiting the resurrection of the body (1 Thess. 4:15-18) and the new heavens and earth (2 Peter 3:10-14). But in the meantime they are with the Lord.

The first time I preached this understanding of the state of the dead in Christ, a sister came up to me afterward who had recently lost her husband. She told me that thinking of her husband as being with the Lord as opposed to a nebulous place of paradise was far more reassuring. I think that is an important practical difference a more biblical understanding of this question can make.

After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, "Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!" And all the angels were standing around the throne and around the elders and the four living creatures, and they fell on their faces before the throne and worshiped God, saying, "Amen! Blessing and glory and wisdom and thanksgiving and honor and power and might be to our God forever and ever! Amen." Then one of the elders addressed me, saying, "Who are these, clothed in white robes, and from where have they come?" I said to him, "Sir, you know." And he said to me, "These are the ones coming out of the great tribulation. They have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
(Revelation 7:11-14)

Initial Thoughts About The Da Vinci Code Movie

I just got back from seeing The Da Vinci Code. Whether you are an ardent believer in the book's basic premise or staunch opponent, I think everyone will agree that the movie is vastly inferior to the novel. The pace of the movie was as plodding as the novel's pace was brisk. With a few exceptions (Paul Bettany as the monk Silas and Ian McKellen as Leigh Tebing) the performances of the actors were uninspired. I was particularly puzzled by Tom Hanks' turn as Robert Langdon, half the time almost disinterested and half the time melodramatic.

I had heard that the movie softened some of the more pointed blows the novel aims at Christianity, and that is how I felt as well. Hanks' Langdon is far more aggressive in his challenges of Teabing's polemics against Christianity than what is found in the novel. Make no mistake, however; the movie still supports all of the outrageous claims of the novel.

In June I will be presenting five lessons on the issues raised in TDC in the adult classes of our Vacation Bible School. But in the meantime, I will quickly list the three most egregious fallacies of the TDC:
1) There is no evidence in any ancient document, canonical or otherwise, that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene.
2) Jesus was considered divine by the vast majority of believers long before Constantine convened the Council of Nicea.
3) The gnostic gospels on which TDC is based MINIMIZE the humanity of Jesus.

I hope to post more material in June.

Going to See The Da Vinci Code This Weekend?

I am curious how many of you are going to see TDC this weekend. My plan is to hit a late-night showing tonight. I don't know if I will have time to post any reflections-tomorrow I will be busy with my barbershop chorus's spring show. By the way, we are doing a parody of Robin Hood, and I have been tapped to play the lovely Maid Marion. I will wear a dress and wig while singing "I Feel Pretty" from West Side Story. It doesn't get any better than that! :-)

Early Reviews of The Da Vinci Code

Well, the early reviews of The Da Vinci Code are coming in, and they are all dismal. On the Rotten Tomatoes website, which collects movie reviews from around the country, TDC is rated 0% fresh - in other words, 100% rotten! Likewise, Drudge is reporting that the tough critics of the Cannes Film Festival nearly laughed the movie off the screen.

It is hard to imagine how a studio could make a boring picture out of a page-turner like TDC, but apparently Opie has done exactly that. This of course does not mitigate the impact of the novel, which outsold the Bible in the US in 2004. But it is pleasing to know that this movie apparently will not be an artistic triumph.

Seventeen Years of Preaching "Full Time"

Not only is today Mother's Day, it is also the 17th anniversary of the beginning of my ministry. I preached my first sermon as the full time preacher of the Oak Hill church on May 14th, 1989. My Mom was there, so I have doubly special memories today. I preached on "What Is A Preacher," and I am pretty sure I still have the sermon (a classic I'm sure!) in my files.

When I was younger I would occasionally read articles by old preachers reflecting on their years of preaching. I am not quite to that stage in life yet. But I have been thinking about how much the world has changed, how much I have changed, and how much preaching has changed in the last 17 years. Some random observations on what has changed since then:
-When I preached on that May 14th, the Soviet Union still existed. By mid-November, it disintegrated.
-I bought my first computer that summer. It had a whopping 20 mb hard drive, less than 1/10th of what I have in my Lexar memory stick.
-In 1989 no one had cells phones except the super rich (the next year I did meet a preacher in Texas who had one in his Cadillac-I always heard they paid well there!)
-In 1989 there was no such thing as the internet (except for the Defense Department).
-In 1989 I was fat, single, and lived in a dumpy apartment. Now...oh wait, that hasn't changed!

As amazing as those changes are to me, I must say that if someone told me 17 years ago that this half-a-hillbilly would get to teach at a college, preach in Australia, tour Israel, and make hundreds of dear friends, I would have never believed them. I thank the Lord constantly for the privilege of preaching. Through this work the Lord has truly given me more than I have given others, and especially Him.

I will wrap up this nostalgic post with a quote from one of the texts I used tonight, a wonderful statement of my purpose-and yours-whatever the next 17 years may hold.

"Oh give thanks to the LORD; call upon his name;
make known his deeds among the peoples!
Sing to him; sing praises to him;
tell of all his wondrous works!
Glory in his holy name;
let the hearts of those who seek the LORD rejoice! " 1 Chronicles 16:8-10

Iraqi Christians

I don't want to belabor the Iraqi situation, so this will be my last post on the topic for a while. But I wanted to quickly address the issue of professed Christians in Iraq.
Since the start of the war in Iraq, I have often heard people pray for our troops along these lines: "Be with our troops who are fighting for the freedom of the Iraqi people, so that some day they may be able to worship you and come to Christ." The problem is, since Saddam was toppled, the plight of those who call themselves Christians has only gotten much worse. This has been documented over and over and over again.
I suppose this confusion is due to a simple assumption: Saddam was bad; persecuting Christians is bad; therefore Saddam must have persecuted Christians. But the reality is that he was relatively secular in his orientation, and while he did not treat those who claimed Christ as well as he did Arabs, he did allow Christians to worship.
And as bad as Saddam was, Iraq has only become a far more dangerous place for Christians with him out of power. Ironically, many of those thousands who have fled have sought refuge in Syria, another country on the wish-list of those egging on war with the Muslim world.

A War That May Come Back to Haunt Christians

While the President’s approval numbers continue to plummet, there is one core constituency that remains loyal. Over half of white evangelicals (55%) still approve of the President’s job performance, according to the Pew Research Center. This is especially true with the issue of the Iraq War. Last fall, Foreign Affairs reported that the more frequently one attended religious services, the more likely they were to support the Administration’s policies in Iraq.

There are many reasons for this faith-based disparity. The devout tend to be socially conservative and deeply patriotic, values which naturally predispose them to look favorably on the President’s policies – especially in wartime. Further, many fundamentalists believe that Israel is still “God’s chosen people,” and that America’s fortunes rise and fall with its support of Israel (and opposition to Israel’s enemies, such as Saddam Hussein). And removing a brutal dictator from power appeals to those who think in clearly defined categories of good and evil.

While I could understand the arguments made in favor of intervention in Iraq, and as much as I respect the honorable way our troops are trying to help the Iraqis build a better life, I did not believe that Saddam Hussein was or intended to be a threat to America’s national security, and that going to war in Iraq was a grave mistake. The events of the last three years have only solidified my initial assessment. And yet most of my Christian friends continue to believe the war was a good idea. After all, how can you be against spreading democracy to those who have been oppressed? I appreciate that noble sentiment, but I believe the issue is more complex than that. If the terms are defined as liberty versus despotism, then support for the war seems reasonable. But what if this war is defined differently – as a war between secularism and religion?

The neoconservatives who prompted the President to go to war have little in common with the religious right. In a widely publicized interview in the New York Times summer before last, Bill Kristol demurred: “I will take Bush over Kerry, but Kerry over Buchanan or any of the lesser Buchananites on the right.” The fact that Kristol would prefer the secular playboy to one of the culture war’s most outspoken conservatives speaks volumes about the principles and priorities of the neocons.

Perhaps the most bellicose of the neocons, Ralph Peters, wrote in USA Today that the “global war on terror” was “a fight over the social, economic and cultural roles of women.” According to Peters, it is the freedoms enjoyed by Western women that antagonize Islamic terrorists, and our troops are fighting overseas for women’s rights, “the titanic struggle of our time.” Not only does this analysis ignore the real root of Islamic terrorism (the Israeli-Palestinian conflict), its logical consequence is that we must make war on all other countries that do not afford women the same freedoms as here in America. Woodrow Wilson, meet Gloria Steinem.

Not satisfied to defend a worldwide war for women’s rights, Peters then maligned “our extremists,” pro-lifers. Those who oppose abortion rights in our country are “reactionary forces,” “champions of the small morality of rules,” and participants in a “patriarchal tyranny that would please Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al-Qaeda's leader in Iraq.” Their “counterparts” are those women in Africa who “demand that young girls undergo genital mutilation just as they did.” Kerry over Buchanan indeed.

At first glance you would suspect that Peters’ antithesis on the political spectrum, Marxist columnist Christopher Hitchens, would be opposed to the neocons’ war. Not so. Hitchens shocked many of his peers on the radical left by supporting the war, yet from the standpoint of his belligerent atheism, his support for the war makes perfect sense. As Hitchens explained to Tim Russert, “Another thing that's very important to me about this war is that it is in effect a war for secularism…I'm for secularism and separation of church and state. Everywhere. I want more of it here, not less, and much more of it there. And it's a perfectly consistent thing.”

Ironically, regular church-goers support a war promoted in part by radicals on the left and right who have only one thing in common - deep-seated resentment of the values and influence of the devout on American public life. Most troubling, how will these radicals wield government power against those they consider the fundamentalist extremists of their own culture? Will they demand that conservative Catholics and evangelicals accept homosexual membership and ordination? Will they insist that these believers reject female submission to male leadership in the home and in the church? Do we have any reason to believe they will show restraint in the lengths to which they will go to coerce others to accept their enlightened tastes?

“Let the reader understand” (Matthew 24:15).

Why I am not a Calvinist

The world of evangelicial blogging has been buzzing lately with the announcement of a debate in the fall on the campus of Liberty University regarding the issue of Calvinism. This has been a hot-buttom issue among Southern Baptists, with some leading theologians in the movement pushing for a more Reformed perspective, and others strongly objecting.
In one sense I do not have a "dog in the fight." I am not a Baptist, and I am not a Calvinist, but I am certainly not a fan of the easy-believism promoted by so many non-Reformed Baptists. However, this controversy has given me reason to re-think my own views on this issue, and I wanted to share with you the fundamental reason I am not a Calvinist.
One of the most frustrating elements of polemic rhetoric is the tendency to caricature the other side. I noticed a lot of this happening on the blogs regarding the controversy among Baptists, and I have certainly noticed it in the circle of my own fellowship. I am a strong believer in "intellectual empathy," in stating your opponents beliefs and reasons for his beliefs in a way that he would accept.
To a large extent this debate hinges on whether we interpret the passages that seem to speak of man's free will in light of those that testify to God's sovreignty, or the other way around. Calvinists are intensely committed to upholding the sovereignty of God, not wanting in any way to diminish the glory due to His name. I appreciate that concern, because it is rooted in Scripture. Therefore Calvinism begins with a view of soverignty that insists that God comprehensively decreed everything that would happen, and then subsume human free will under that definition. As an example, here is a citation from the Westminster Confession of Faith:

" I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established."

And I suppose that a Reformed theologian would say that I put the cart before the horse by forcing those passages which speak of God's sovereignty into the mold of those verses which seem to depict human freedom. However, it seems to me that God's sovereignty and human freedom do not have to be at such odds, and the extreme solution of Calvinism need not be accepted, if we grant the following:
1) God's decision to create was sovereign; i.e. not compelled or forced upon Him by any external influence.
2) God may or may not have created human beings with free will. It was His exclusive decision (and obviously I believe the Bible teaches that He did).
3) God may at any time choose to override this free will (Balaam's prophecies, for instance).
4) God can at any time put an end to all rebellion, and will in fact do so at the Lord's return.
5) God did not have to make any effort to save humanity from His wrath. The decision to offer a way of salvation was totally sovereign, wholly based on His good counsel.
6) God may or may not have made the acceptance of this salvation conditional, but He did. No one forced this decision on Him; it was His sovereign decision.

My goal in making these observations is not to present an exegetical case as much as it is to explain the fundamental reason I am not a Calvinist: I believe God's sovereignty does not necessitate complete determinism. I hope I have not been guilty of the very polemic trap I mentioned earlier. If you are a Calvinist and believe I have not accurately stated what Calvinism is, please let me know.

Finally, I must say, to even ponder God's purposes and plans is a humbling experience. I never feel more small and creaturely than when I think of such questions. "Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!
'For who has known the mind of the Lord,
or who has been his counselor?'
'Or who has given a gift to him
that he might be repaid?'
For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen." (Rom. 11:33-36)